Signed Back In The Day: More Desirable?

[Exhibitman]

I've always felt that items signed 'back in the day' during a player's career are more interesting to own and should sell for a premium over those signed after a player retires. When I've gone after autographs of (especially) postwar players I often gravitate to team issues, McCarthy PCs, RPPCs, and so on that were signed and postmarked during the player's career.




I was just curious whether others think of it as I do.

Your views on it?

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Yes, not even close


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RelicSports]

Agreed. Love the earlier/playing days signatures over modern day/post career

[David Atkatz]

Absolutely. Vintage rules.

[Shoeless Moe]

I'm partial toward after they've died, aka Coaches Corner.

[Scott Garner]

Collecting vintage is absolutely what it's all about!

[daves_resale_shop]

I'd much prefer a playing days signature over a modern day version, and in many cases would pay a premium...it's very neat to see the evolution of a players signature as the demand for it increases...

[HOF Auto Rookies]

I'll also ask you this, you tell me? Here's an example of both.

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1454896310.785774.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[David Atkatz]

God, I hate Sharpie!

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

God, I hate Sharpie!

Exactly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[thetruthisoutthere]

My Yaz.



Yaz-1.jpg

[earlywynnfan]

God, I hate PSA and JSA stickers on the front of photos!

[Mr. Zipper]

While I generally agree vintage tends to be more desirable everything else being equal, but there are other key factors such as medium, condition and signature quality.

A vintage Mantle would be great, but if it's a scribbled signature on a stained scrap of a menu, I'd prefer a later era signed photo in pristine condition. While I understand some collectors like the gathered-in-the-wild and aged look of old ad hoc items and feel it adds to the charm, it's not my cup of tea.

[begsu1013]

not a rookie, but here's my example of modern vs period:

[Runscott]

Great Mantle example, but the trifecta would be if he had lived into the 21st century and developed an unreadable glyph.

[obxhouses4rent]

I have owned alot of cards signed over 35 years ago, almost all in blue sharpie.
properly stored, I defy anyone to be able to tell if they were not signed last week or 35 years ago. Sharpe holds up very well. Some ball points do not.

I would hate to have signed cards in ball point that after 35 years they look lke they were signed in 1930's (fading). Some are now rather rare signatures, but still look great!! (my 2 cents) JJ

[w7imel]

Originally Posted by obxhouses4rent

I have owned alot of cards signed over 35 years ago, almost all in blue sharpie.
properly stored, I defy anyone to be able to tell if they were not signed last week or 35 years ago. Sharpe holds up very well. Some ball points do not.

I would hate to have signed cards in ball point that after 35 years they look lke they were signed in 1930's (fading). Some are now rather rare signatures, but still look great!! (my 2 cents) JJ

Funny you mentioned that...I had a basball signed in early 90's by Roger Penske, Al Unser JR and Emmeroson Fitapladdi that was signed in black sharpie, last week I had same ball signed on last side panel by Castroneves in black sharpie and it looks like the ball was signed by all at the same time...

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by HOF Auto Rookies

I'll also ask you this, you tell me? Here's an example of both.

Attachment 220520


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IMHO, this is a great example of the old saying, "Leave well enough, alone".
I personally would prefer to have left the vintage signed rookie exactly the way it was with a ball point early sig...

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

IMHO, this is a great example of the old saying, "Leave well enough, alone".

I personally would prefer to have left the vintage signed rookie exactly the way it was with a ball point early sig...

Me too, I just bought it a year ago with both signatures already on it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark70Z]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I've always felt that items signed 'back in the day' during a player's career are more interesting to own and should sell for a premium over those signed after a player retires. When I've gone after autographs of (especially) postwar players I often gravitate to team issues, McCarthy PCs, RPPCs, and so on that were signed and postmarked during the player's career.

I was just curious whether others think of it as I do. Your views on it?

I'm with you; I like the items that were signed "back in the day" more than the modern counterparts. Some of my favorite items are the ones that are postmarked so you know the date it was mailed. Now, I do collect some of the modern signatures, often in sharpie, but prefer the ink/pen signatures of the past.